Talk:StoneToss/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Lazman321 (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Alalch E. (talk · contribs) 15:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

You know what, I'll risk it. This will be my next review for the October drive. Lazman321 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

"...to have revealed his identity, he sought help from..." to "...to have revealed his identity, StoneToss sought help from..."
"...alleged real name in their tweets, and amended its privacy policy..." to "...alleged real name in their tweets and amended its privacy policy..."
"...takes a non-overt, crypto-Nazi approach, to channel and normalize..." to "...takes a non-overt, crypto-Nazi approach to channel and normalize..."
"They also include sexist tropes..." to "The webcomic also include sexist tropes..."
"The cartoons are shared and interacted with within both right-wing and left-wing online communities causing them to gain increased visibility." to "Both right-wing and left-wing online communities share and interact with StoneToss' cartoons, causing them to gain increased visibility."
"...commonly known as 'stonetossedit'..." to "...commonly titled 'stonetossedit'..."
"...been reposted not as memes in the usual sense but as..." to "...been reposted, not as memes in the usual sense, but as..."
Split the second paragraph of the Alleged revelation of identity section into two, with the second paragraph starting with "After a few days, Twitter amended its privacy policy..."

These are my suggestions regarding the prose of this article. Lazman321 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed tasks 1 through 7 here. Task 8 remains. TarnishedPath^talk 00:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All tasks completed.—Alalch E. 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

In the lead, I recommend removing the quote as it is not in the body of the article. Other than that, the necessary MOS guidelines are followed. I don't mind the citations in the lead given the contentious nature of the subject. Lazman321 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, hold on. MOS:LAYOUT does suggest that single sentence paragraphs should be kept to a minimum. I recommend merging the last paragraph of the Alleged revelation of identity section into the prior paragraph. Lazman321 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both things done.—Alalch E. 16:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

The easiest criterion to meet. There is indeed a list of references that follows the relevant guidelines at MOS:REFERENCES. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2b - Reliable sources

I am concerned about using The Daily Dot, Boing Boing, and Mashable in this article given how they are only considered marginally reliable on WP:RSP and how controversial the topic is. I'm fine with using The Daily Dot for verifying when the webcomic started, but otherwise, I recommend finding more high-quality sources or otherwise removing the information, particularly contentious information, supported by these sources. Lazman321 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having just finished the source check, a lot of the information supported by these sources are in the high-quality sources already cited. As such, I'm more convinced than before that should, for the most part, be replaced. The Daily Dot, however, might be worth keeping given that it does have new information that isn't really controversial such as the community bans on Reddit and Discord. Lazman321 (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321, I've removed Boing Boing and Mashable. Please let me know if my edits are satisfactory. TarnishedPath^talk 14:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I noticed Boing Boing is still cited, but I didn't realize beforehand that the author was a subject-matter expert. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2c - No original research

Reviewing... - Source check here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, finished. I did notice a few things that need addressed but nothing too crazy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: There are some concerns raised in my source check that still remain. Could you please address them? Lazman321 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it.—Alalch E. 21:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321:

Done. For individual edits you may view the rationales at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Alalch+E.&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2024-10-16&end=2024-10-17&limit=50—Alalch E. 00:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2d - No copyright violations

My concerns regarding the excessive quotations have been resolved, and the Copvio Detector gave a mere score of 2.9%. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

All the main aspects of this topic, such as the content and ideology of the comics, their role in their cultural landscape, and the doxxing of the cartoonist and subsequent reactions, are addressed in this article. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3b - Focused

The article does not go into excessive detail about the subject nor does it go off-topic. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 - Neutral

As is, this article already represents the general consensus of reliable sources, even if that consensus brings with it negative connotations. StoneToss, as already discussed in the talk page, is undoubtedly a neo-Nazi cartoonist, and the article even explains how his comics demonstrate this ideology. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 - Stable

Given that much of what is contentious in this article has been solidified by consensus on the talk page, any reasonable content dispute that this article has had has been resolved. Current attempts at challenging this consensus have been quickly quashed, and no discussion on the talk page has been active since August. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The one image included in this article is the logo, which has a valid public domain tag. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6b - Relevant media

The logo is certainly relevant to the article. Perhaps you could include a comic to illustrate StoneToss's Neo-Nazi ideology, but I won't require it. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We previously had a discussion about including one of the the comics from Red Pannels (see Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1#Red Panels) and it was decided that we shouldn't, partly because the licence for the file was questionable. The file has since been deleted. When it comes to StoneToss comics at the bottom of their webpage is a copyright notice "© 2017– 2023 stonetoss.com" so I think that would be a definite no to using their comics. TarnishedPath^talk 09:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 - Verdict

@TarnishedPath: You know, there's something bugging me about this article that can't really be addressed under one criterion, as it honestly encompasses multiple. It's not enough to quick-fail this article, but it is enough for me to put the review on hold before I can continue further into my review. My issue is that the career section, which is the main section of the article, is messy and disorganized.

The current header is a misnomer; it details much more than StoneToss's career, delving into the content of and reaction toward his comics. "Overview" would probably be a better header.
Paragraph one starts with an awkwardly written introduction to StoneToss, before suddenly transitioning into a boring "A said X, B said Y" format regarding StoneToss's objectionable content.
Paragraph two consists of three seemingly unrelated sentences.
Paragraph three is dedicated to summarizing a single source, save for a sentence at the end mentioning a tangentially related statement from another source. This is especially strange since both sources, useful as they are, spend at most a paragraph discussing StoneToss.
Paragraph four is a single-sentence paragraph about random trivia.

This disorganization makes it difficult for the section to readily convey encyclopedic information to a general audience. Not to mention, the number of quotes in this section is both excessive to the point of copyright violation and potentially misleading in that implies that the objectionable nature of StoneToss's comics is the opinion of some outlets rather than the general consensus of pretty much all available sources. I suggest that to remedy this, the section is reorganized to consolidate relevant ideas into substantive paragraphs that don't rely on quotes beyond for illustration. The first one or two paragraphs could introduce StoneToss broadly before delving into more specific characteristics of his comics, with the next one or two dealing with reactions toward the comic such as its popularity on Twitter and the right-wing and the re-purposing of the comics for memes.

I'll be putting this review On hold for ten days and will continue the review after this is addressed. Lazman321 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lazman321, and thanks for taking this on and your reviewing work so far. I am back from a ten-day wikibreak. @TarnishedPath: Thanks for helping here. In the following days I will make the changes to address the above points. —Alalch E. 18:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321 I have addressed the points. Please take a look at the article now and you may view the rationales for individual edits at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Alalch+E.&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2024-10-11&end=2024-10-11&limit=50 —Alalch E. 12:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, got to say, I'm impressed. Great job! I was a little worried my request would be potentially misinterpreted or disregarded, but looks like you addressed it well. My review will resume soon. Lazman321 (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: Sorry for the delays. I have finished the review and will be placing it

On hold once more for seven days. Lazman321 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321: No problem and thank you for the high-quality review. The outstanding items have been addressed. —Alalch E. 16:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: You're welcome, and thank you for addressing my concerns and making the article as good as it is. Given the topic at hand, you have my respect.

Passed Lazman321 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.